DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigchainDB vs. SWC-DB vs. Typesense

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. BigchainDB vs. SWC-DB vs. Typesense

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

BigchainDB is scalable blockchain database offering decentralization, immutability and native assets

A high performance, scalable Wide Column DBMS

A typo-tolerant, in-memory search engine optimized for instant search-as-you-type experiences and developer productivity

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Wide column store

Search engine

Secondary database models

Time Series DBMS

DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems
Trend Chart

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.79
Rank	#212	Overall
	#36	Document stores

Score	0.01
Rank	#376	Overall
	#13	Wide column stores

Score	0.79
Rank	#210	Overall
	#14	Search engines

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

atos.net/en/convergence-creators/portfolio/standard-common-repository

www.bigchaindb.com

github.com/kashirin-alex/swc-db
www.swcdb.org

typesense.org

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

bigchaindb.readthedocs.io/en/latest

typesense.org/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Atos Convergence Creators

Alex Kashirin

Initial release

2012

2016

2020

2015

Current release

1703

0.5, April 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

AGPL v3

Open Source

GPL V3

Open Source

GPL V3

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

Java

Python

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

pre-defined schema optional

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

yes

XML support

Some form of processing data in XML format, e.g. support for XML data structures, and/or support for XPath, XQuery or XSLT.

yes

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

LDAP

CLI Client
RESTful HTTP API

Proprietary protocol
Thrift

RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

All languages with LDAP bindings

Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Python
Ruby

C++

.Net

community maintained
Clojure

community maintained
Dart

community maintained
Go

community maintained
Java

community maintained
JavaScript
Perl

community maintained
PHP
Python
Ruby
Rust

community maintained
Swift

community maintained

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

Multi-source replication using RAFT

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes,with MongoDB ord RethinkDB

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

LDAP bind authentication

yes

More information provided by the system vendor

We invite representatives of system vendors to contact us for updating and extending the system information,
and for displaying vendor-provided information such as key customers, competitive advantages and market metrics.